Mawbey, R (On the Application Of) v Lewisham Council

Mawbey, R (On the Application Of) v Lewisham Council

The central support poles are 'masts' within the meaning of the GPDO, as they are poles supporting antennae transmitting and receiving radio waves. The Defendant's interpretation was irrational and contrary to the statutory purpose of balancing infrastructure needs and visual/public safety concerns. The decision that the installation was permitted development was therefore unlawful.

Parties
Claimant: Nigel Mawbey; Defendant: Lewisham Council; Interested Party: Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim for judicial review granted
Legal Topics
Permitted Development, Interpretation of 'mast' Under GPDO, Telecommunications Infrastructure, Judicial Review of Local Authority Decision
Planning Law Administrative Law Permitted Development Interpretation of 'mast' Under GPDO Telecommunications Infrastructure Judicial Review of Local Authority Decision

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Mawbey

Claimant

Lewisham Council

Defendant

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited

Interested Party

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the central support poles installed on the building constitute 'masts' within the meaning of the GPDO, Part 16, paragraph A.1(2)(c)
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's interpretation of 'mast' was correct in law

Ratio Decidendi

The central support poles are 'masts' within the meaning of the GPDO, as they are poles supporting antennae transmitting and receiving radio waves. The Defendant's interpretation was irrational and contrary to the statutory purpose of balancing infrastructure needs and visual/public safety concerns. The decision that the installation was permitted development was therefore unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review granted

Orders

  • The Defendant's decision of 9 June 2017 is quashed.